Indeed there is no direct acknowledgement that new technologies exist which can help in educating our young people.
The report while suggesting a minimum of 160 hours' study on courses that discuss the effects technological advances have had on the world suggests a minimum of only 80 hours for courses which give hands-on use in technology.
It is difficult to understand how the task group responsible for the document could justify these time allocations on educational, and future employment grounds.
How do these proposals marry with the Higher Still proposals where the largest explosion in course provision is in the area of new technologies?
Where do we find pupils to take advantage of the Higher Still courses if the time allocation in S3 and S4 is not increased?
Perhaps Helen Liddell should ask where in the consultation document are the initiatives that would ensure the equipment supplied to schools under the Creatis and similar projects is fully utilised.
Ian Tennant, Nigel Rise, Dedridge, Livingston.